Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=508351 --- Comment #49 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-06-11 15:55:58 EDT --- Koji scratchbuild for F-13: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2245550 One note - I'm suspecting that description and definition of 'manual' sub-package is a leftover, so it should be removed. REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + rpmlint is almost silent: Sulaco ~/Desktop: rpmlint josm-* josm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsus josm.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/josm-0/CONTRIBUTION josm-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs -> Java docs, Java-docs, Javanese 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Sulaco ~/Desktop: + The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. + The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. +/- The package meets the Packaging Guidelines, except issue with sub-package 'manual' mentioned above. + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. + The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. + The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included in %doc. + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. + The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source (by checking the sources, generated from attached script) Sulaco ~/tmp: diff -ru josm-0 josm-0.from_script/ Sulaco ~/tmp: ls josm-0 josm-0.from_script Sulaco ~/tmp: + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. 0 No need to handle locales. 0 No shared library files. + The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. + The package is not designed to be relocatable. + The package owns all directories that it creates. + The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. + Permissions on files are set properly. + The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + The package consistently uses macros. + The package contains code, or permissible content. 0 No extremely large documentation files (except javadoc) + Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. 0 No header files. 0 No static libraries. 0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files. 0 The package doesn't contain library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1). 0 No devel sub-package. + The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives. + The package includes a %{name}.desktop file, and that file is properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. + The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. + At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. Please, fix/comment issue with 'manual' sub-package, and I'll continue. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review